Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

Norway in reactions

Should it be under Norway when it is an director of an independent non state organisation making a statement? All the other countries are statements from their government. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick thing it is misspelled, it should be Norwegian not norwegin. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 49.197.224.249 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of government level reactions in other languages that are missing in the English version here. French has Arab League, African union, EU, and UN. Spanish has a few individual countries that aren't here, and Arabic has 16 that mostly aren't here. 49.197.224.249 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to make an edit request proposing specific changes.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Arabic article wildly different than English article

Why is the arabic version and the english version wildly different?

The english version: "On 17 October 2023, an explosion took place in the parking lot of the courtyard of al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City during the Israel–Hamas war, resulting in a large number of fatalities and injuries among displaced Palestinians seeking shelter there." "The consensus from various independent studies of videos, images, and eyewitness reports of the explosion, its aftermath, and the blast area suggests that an errant rocket launch from within Gaza is the most probable cause. While this is not a conclusive finding, it is currently considered the likeliest explanation based on the evidence gathered in investigations"

The arabic version translated: "The Baptist Hospital massacre, also known as the Arab National Hospital massacre, is a massacre committed by the Israeli Air Force when it raided the Arab National Hospital “Al-Baptist” in the Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, south of Gaza City, in the early night hours of October 17, 2023. The raid hit Violent Israeli air strikes in the hospital courtyard, which contained dozens of wounded, as well as hundreds of displaced civilians, most of whom were women and children. The Israeli massacre caused a real disaster. It tore apart the bodies of the victims, making them scattered and burned, while the hospital turned into a pool of blood. The National Arab Baptist Hospital is one of the oldest hospitals in the Gaza Strip, and is affiliated with the Anglican Episcopal Church in Jerusalem." Isnr13 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the Arabic version is written by Arabic-speaking editors, mostly from the Middle East/North African, using MENA news sources, which usually have a significant bias when it comes to coverage of Israel and Palestine. Mooonswimmer 23:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Purposed Confession

Hello, Two outlets have reported on a video published by Israel which shows an Islamic Jihad member admitting that it was one of their rockets which hit the hospital compound. I think if this catches in a few other sources, it should be included in the article. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-releases-interrogation-footage-of-islamic-jihad-spokesman-admitting-groups-rocket-struck-al-ahli-hospital-at-start-of-war/ https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-796006 Tennisist123 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tennisist123 apparently you need to use a special form to make change requests.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests

Someone linked it above.

49.182.84.107 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that link suggests posting it to the talk page to gain some concensus before posting the formal edit request. Tennisist123 (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This has now made it onto the Telegraph in the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/09/israel-hamas-war-latest-news-netanyahu-rafah-offensive-date/#1712646290366 post at 8:04am Tennisist123 (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Added, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Lede concerns

@Nableezy: The investigation belongs - but in the body, not the lede. The issue is that we are providing a minority position with excessive weight, in violation of MOS:LEADREL and WP:BALASP. In addition, I believe we are misrepresenting the source; the implication is that they are casting doubt on the entire theory, when they are only casting doubt on whether a specific launch of rockets was related. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like either that, or a summary along those lines is desperately needed in the lead for balance ... Otherwise the lead would just be POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Without it, the lede matches the consensus of reliable sources - that a misfired rocket was probably, though not conclusively, to blame. WP:NPOV doesn't mean presenting all POV's with equal weight and as having equal validity, it means giving POV's prominence in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Dozens and dozens of RS have repeated the FA findings, so it's due. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you link those "dozens and dozens" of reliable sources that have repeated the FA findings? I'm only finding a couple of reliable sources that have reported on them - and reporting on a finding is not the same as repeating and endorsing a finding. BilledMammal (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No, reporting something is not the same as endorsing it. Reporting it can still make it due, however (it's already attributed). Endorsement world be relevant only for Wikivoice. Prominent RS examples of coverage: [1], [2], [3]. Also repeated in this pertinent Mondo critique of the HRW report. And here it appears that FA did a further follow up report in February that re-confirmed some of their earlier findings. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Reporting on a viewpoint doesn't make it WP:DUE; DUE talks about how widely a view is held, not how widely it is reported.

The sentence we are discussing refers to the 15 February 2024 report referenced in the New Arab article; the other sources that you mention are about a different report. Do you have "dozens and dozens" of reliable sources discussing the 15 February 2024 report? BilledMammal (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's just Qatari-financed The New Arab, it might not be due. Alaexis_¿question? 09:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If it belongs in the body then a summary of it belongs in the lead. Only including the conclusions of one set of sources is a NPOV violation. nableezy - 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Also FA source holds greater weight since it is the most recent investigation. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

and it's an actual investigation, involving evidence; as opposed to news sources just repeating either the lines of governments or the opinions of random guest commentators. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Many news sources did their own investigations - and it's worth noting that even Forensic Architecture changed their initial report, from alleging it was an artillery striking to agreeing that it was probably a rocket. BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Good. They have internal fact-checking, verification and reassessment processes in place. Sounds reliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The question here isn't reliability, it's significance. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Not everything that is in the body needs to be mentioned in the lede, and the notion that we need to present two points of view with equal prominence is WP:FALSEBALANCE; FA's position is the view of a very small minority, and by included it in the lede we are giving it undue prominence. BilledMammal (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Forensic Architecture is a highly esteemed organization whose findings cannot be dismissed as the view of a "very small minority." WP:DUE: pages should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints," FA is certainly such viewpoint. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty significant viewpoint in the context. Tbh, I think we could cite FA directly with attribution given the volume of citation/esteem the organisation has generally received over the years in both news and journal sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

One source isn't sufficient to establish a viewpoint as "significant" - and Forensic Architecture's methods have their critics. BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Art news ...? That's the bar? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

One highly esteemed source, yes, is enough to establish a significant viewpoint. FA's art news critics are irrelevant. Meanwhile, NYT's numerous critics, including RS such as the intercept, are plentiful. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There's also WP:DATED. The line about the "currently likeliest scenario" is referenced to a source from 23 October. That's pretty immediate to events, and now stale and old (and yes dated) from an analytical standpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so why are we mentioning the intelligence assessments of Israel and three other countries aligned with Israel – that's like the POV motherlode. The intelligence outlets of Israeli allies are hardly independent sources in a conflict they're supporting, and, per the above, just because media report on them, doesn't mean they're endorsed or necessarily due. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest for the same reason we are mentioning the claims of Hamas and PIJ - but that isn't the topic of this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the source

I'm opening a separate section, as the above section has become focused on whether inclusion is WP:DUE, and overlooked the other concern, that we aren't accurately representing the source. We say they "cast doubt on the errant rocket launch theory", but the source is limited to casting doubt on two specific claims, making no statement about the overall theory. In addition, Forensic Architecture has previously said they believe the most likely cause of the explosion is a rocket. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

They may have conceded that a video image they had relied on probably showed a rocket in early January but for the later investigation they are saying not a rocket. They also allege that Israeli evidence was part of a disinfo campaign. Since we do not have conclusive proof, only probabilistic conclusions, I see no reason why an outlier from a reputable source should not be included in the lead, it's a bit like "Israel disputes this...", we always put that in, don't we? Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat OR on my part but when one considers Israel's 14 October demand for the evacuation of 22 hospitals in the northern Gaza Strip and an earlier small strike on al-Ahli and then what happened at al-Shifa and all the other hospitals, I think some sources that are alleging a "pattern" and "intent" around the hospital network are possibly on the right track, time will tell. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BilledMammal the source is drastically represented. The lead, as it existed, vaguely claimed that FA "cast doubt" on the findings. But the actual FA report is essentially a nothingburger - it says that:

1) The Israeli military claims about which specific rockets caused the incident were not correct.

2) An anonymous aerospace expert (?) says the rockets ran out of fuel and thus could not have caused the damage to the hospital.

3) "What happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive"

4) The Israeli military has attacked other hospitals and runs propoganda

In other words - they have no idea what happened, but they think Israel in generals sus. I'm not actually sure why we're even citing this given how little this source actually offers - it honestly feels like an attempt to inject false balance against an overwhelming and contrary consensus from reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Naftali

I think the tweet of Hananya Naftali, an aide to Israeli PM Netnyahu, belongs. The tweet says: “Israeli Air Force struck a Hamas terrorist base inside a hospital in Gaza. A multiple number of terrorists are dead. It’s heartbreaking that Hamas is launching rockets from hospitals, Mosques, schools, and using civilians as human shields.”

It has been discussed in an article in a peer-reviewed journal, co-authored by Israeli professor Neve Gordon. It has been discussed in other sources too[4][5][6][7][8][9].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The journal article is a highly partisan source, stating as fact claims that reliable sources generally reject, such as that this explosion was caused by Israel bombing the hospital. A single highly partisan journal article doesn't establish that inclusion is WP:DUE, and given that including this has been discussed and rejected in the past I don't believe it is appropriate to make - and restore - a WP:BOLD edit on the basis of such a source. BilledMammal (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this particular source has ever been discussed, which was only published on Jan 19. And WP:POVSOURCE doesn't affect reliability, it remains reliable and scholarly. Plus, I did provide 6 other sources here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t say it did; I was referring to WP:NPOV#Bias in sources and WP:DUE - although taking as fact, despite no expertise in the field, a position that Is extremely marginal at best, does raise questions about reliability.

This source hasn’t, but the content has. The source may warrant reopening the discussion, but not ignoring the previous consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

As demonstrated by VR this quote was discussed in multiple sources, so the claim of undue doesn't hold, especially when considering that this is an aide to the Israeli PM. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

He wasn't an aide - he was some sort of social media manager - and those sources around last time this was discussed. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Still means he has a very close professional connection to the premier and one of his "arms". Also, quote still widely reported in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't the source being used to highlight the tweet as an incidence of the presumptive use of the "human shields" defense/excuse before the IDF has muddled its way towards whatever its ultimate story? It wasn't establishing facts about the event, but commenting on reactions (one specifically). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The journal article outweighs all the news articles combined here. The claim that it is not due is based on nothing. nableezy - 18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Page lede should include both perspectives to ensure NPOV

To SPECIFICO, you deleted from the lede summary of RS content from the body of the page ensuring NPOV in the lede, arguing that it is somehow content that is not a summary of the body, which it plainly is.

Do not do that again before obtaining consensus here for wanting to violate NPOV in the lede.

It should be added that SPECIFICO is now extending edit-warring from another page where they are also trying to delete RS NPOV content in violation of Wiki rules.

Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede-body consistency is more of a technicality that can be fixed, but your lede additions were lacking in neutrality -

• Channel 4 News investigations contested Israeli claims seems misleading, firstly since they're just reporting on investigations by Forensic Architecture and Earshot. Also while they report on evidence which casts doubt on certain Israeli claims, they don't back a particular theory; they also say Hamas and Islamic Jihad have so far offered little evidence to back their claims that Israel fired the missile ...
• If the New Yorker quote is included, it should be clarified that it's another reference to FA report, not some additional investigation.
• an aggressive disinformation campaign seems like FA's editorialization which I don't think belongs in the lede
• multiple news outlets erroneously cited the IDF’s claim doesn't really match FA's language
• noted isn't the appropriate language for FA's controversial claims; it's one of the loaded terms that MOS:SAID warns us about
• The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture seems like an effort to bolster the prominence of the report, when it's very normal for media sources to refer to one another, and we don't typically note such references (let alone in ledes)

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The lede additions were literally taken from the body of the page from accepted RS content. It was summarizing that, so unless you or anyone else wants to change the body of the main page to no longer contain those which would require you to challenge those claims and RS sources, the lede should be returned as was.

Every word of the lede is exactly matched by the RS sources.

The Channel 4 investigations are not "just reporting on FA and Earshot", they are independent investigations that drew their own conclusions, as is noted in the body of the page where both investigations are referenced and sourced, here and here.

seems like FA's editorialization which I don't think belongs in the lede, fortunately what you think isn't relevant, Wiki rules are: FA is a RS, they concluded that, it's in the body of the page, it is highly relevant and must be included in the lede.

Otherwise when I say that the prior paragraph making claims about the rocket clearly being a misfire is "loaded" and "contentious" it would also have to be removed. Fortunately, again, Wiki doesn't work like that.

doesn't really match FA's language it is an exact summary of what FA concludes: "Multiple news outlets cited Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari’s claim that it was a Palestinian rocket that struck al-Ahli hospital with ‘most of this damage… done due to the propellant, not just the warhead’. Similar claims were made by Human Rights Watch, the Washington Post, the BBC, and AP. Our analysis, however, suggests that all seventeen visible rockets in the salvo the Israeli military claimed was responsible had finished burning their fuel mid-flight, meaning that by Hagari’s own logic they could not have caused the damage to al-Ahli."

In fact I was overly summarizing by not including the names of all those outlets FA concludes repeated what they say was a false account.

noted isn't the appropriate language for FA's controversial claims what you think is "controversial" is fortunately irrelevant: FA is a RS widely cited by other RS, "noted" is not only the exact right term, it should actually be "concluded".

seems like an effort to bolster the prominence all those outlets cited FA's analysis, they are all RS, and the language matches that exactly. What it "seems like" to you is again irrelevant, it meets RS standard and should be included in the lede.

All these points are contained in the body of the page, and if you would like to contest them and have them removed, good luck with that.

The lede will include it until those elements are successfully challenged and removed by consensus.

Make sure to make a separate talk topic for each the parts you want to remove, and again good luck. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)